Is IQ a good measure of intelligence?

Yes

No

I think it is, because IQ is the best predictor of success or failure in a range of tasks considered to require "intelligence". Further, those with low IQs are rarely or never found in high IQ occupations, such as hard science academics. This is found across cultures, and no-one has succeeded in making a test which produces equal results between races and nations, yet has predictive validity for intellectual activities as defined in each culture. Despite claims to the contrary what it means to be "intelligent" is pretty consistent across cultures.

Also the positive manifold of correlations between IQ subtests yields a general factor which itself correlates with a number of biological brain measures.

GuestGuest Advertisement

IQ is the best predictor of success or failure in a range of tasks considered to require "intelligence".

Click to expand...

Isn't that circular? Aren't you just saying that IQ tests are a the best predictor of how well you will do on an IQ test? If you're defining "intelligence" in terms of IQ tests, how can IQ tests fail to predict intelligence?

Isn't that circular? Aren't you just saying that IQ tests are a the best predictor of how well you will do on an IQ test? If you're defining "intelligence" in terms of IQ tests, how can IQ tests fail to predict intelligence?

Click to expand...

No, obviously tasks other than IQ tests. There are any number of tasks and activities people would say require intelligence, and IQ is the best known predictor of performance in those. Therefore IQ correlates well with what people consider to be intelligence.

I think it is, because IQ is the best predictor of success or failure in a range of tasks considered to require "intelligence". Further, those with low IQs are rarely or never found in high IQ occupations, such as hard science academics. This is found across cultures, and no-one has succeeded in making a test which produces equal results between races and nations, yet has predictive validity for intellectual activities as defined in each culture. Despite claims to the contrary what it means to be "intelligent" is pretty consistent across cultures.

Also the positive manifold of correlations between IQ subtests yields a general factor which itself correlates with a number of biological brain measures.

Click to expand...

It may be a good measure in some respects, but like many things it is very imperfect, for reasons that have been adequately rehearsed elsewhere. Saying something is the "best" predictor, compared with a load of others that are worse, does not by itself prove much.

It may be a good measure in some respects, but like many things it is very imperfect, for reasons that have been adequately rehearsed elsewhere. Saying something is the "best" predictor, compared with a load of others that are worse, does not by itself prove much.

Click to expand...

Can you go through some of the reasons rehearsed elsewhere? Surely if IQ is a good predictor of all of the tasks which require intelligence among other things, then it is getting pretty close to intelligence, and any lowering of the correlations is due to the fact that individual tasks are affected by other variables.

Can you go through some of the reasons rehearsed elsewhere? Surely if IQ is a good predictor of all of the tasks which require intelligence among other things, then it is getting pretty close to intelligence, and any lowering of the correlations is due to the fact that individual tasks are affected by other variables.

Click to expand...

They were raised on the other thread you started, the one attempting to show that blacks are less intelligent than whites (I think it was, though I only skimmed it).

No, obviously tasks other than IQ tests. There are any number of tasks and activities people would say require intelligence, and IQ is the best known predictor of performance in those. Therefore IQ correlates well with what people consider to be intelligence.

Click to expand...

Unless there are compounding factors that makes someone good at both, like social status, wealth, and other environmental effects.

Unless there are compounding factors that makes someone good at both, like social status, wealth, and other environmental effects.

Racists do not like to think about these things, but they exist.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing I'm a "racist". What is your definition of "racist"? Of course "racists" (anyone who disagrees with the "no differences" extreme Communist dogma) are by definition ignorant, so won't think about those things, and even when they did, right in the thread before your comment, they still didn't, because they are ignorant racists, who just don't understand that all humans are exactly the same.

Can you go through some of the reasons rehearsed elsewhere? Surely if IQ is a good predictor of all of the tasks which require intelligence among other things, then it is getting pretty close to intelligence, and any lowering of the correlations is due to the fact that individual tasks are affected by other variables.